Three independent corrections
Aegon committed three distinct contractual wrongs from 1 July 2005. Each is a separate cause of action. The Court may uphold any single claim, any two, or all three — every combination produces a calculable damages figure.
The figures on this page derive from one unanswered question: what reinsurance premiums did the Defendants actually receive? The Defendants have admitted the data exists and was not provided to the commission calculation function. No explanation has been provided. These figures are calculated on Aegon’s own declared data — they are a floor. On production of actual bordereaux, all figures will be recalculated upward.
The independence principle
Each claim may be upheld or dismissed without affecting the others. Claim 1 alone yields approximately $13.65M on Aegon's own figures with no assumptions. Claims 1 and 2 together establish minimum liability without any actuarial assumptions. Claim 3 operates on whatever base the Court accepts — including Aegon's own estimates if Claim 2 is dismissed. All eight possible judicial outcomes are pre-calculated below.
The correct Korea commission rate of 1.875% GWP was pre-determined and confirmed in writing by Aegon's own Division General Counsel in May 2006. From approximately January 2005, Aegon reduced the applied rate in three steps to 0.375% — an 80% reduction — without any written amendment and without Harrison's consent to MOC 17 or MOC 18.
What this claim corrects
- Korea rate restored from 0.375% to 1.875%
- All other Aegon figures unchanged
- Aegon's own declared GWP — no assumptions
- EA only — CA unaffected
Why the reduction is void
- EA Clause 20: amendments must be in writing
- GPR-TIMAP s.9.6: simultaneous written amendment required (Double Modification Lock)
- MOC 17 and MOC 18: not signed by Harrison
- CC-74 (Oct 2024): Marketing Agreement provides no unilateral rate-change authority
From 1 July 2005, Aegon restricted the commission base to policies issued within narrow date windows — separating premiums into "old" and "new" cohorts and calculating only on a restricted subset. Neither the EA nor the CA contains any such restriction. The cohort limitation was invented after termination and applied without written amendment.
What this claim corrects
- Cohort restriction removed — Old + New = ALL
- All premium under named agreements included
- Aegon's own estimates retained throughout
- No actuarial assumptions required
Why the restriction has no basis
- CC-8 (Feb 2022): Aegon admits insurers could not provide cohort splits
- No written amendment authorised the restriction
- CA Gross Premium definition: "all premium collected" — comprehensive, no date window
- Ten independently sufficient grounds defeat the cohort defence
From 1 July 2005, Aegon replaced actual received premium figures with fixed monthly decay factors: Japan ×0.99, Korea ×0.982, CBA ×0.9865 of the prior month. Applied uniformly for 20 years, these produce estimates increasingly divorced from actual figures Aegon held but refused to use. Decay rates were never actuarially substantiated and were applied without written amendment.
What this claim corrects
- Decay model replaced with market lapse rates (KLIA / LIAJ / APRA)
- 5% p.a. growth floor applied 2005–2010
- St George and Lumley: Aegon's declared revenues used as base
- Operates on whatever base the Court accepts — including Aegon's estimates if Claim 2 dismissed
The admission chain
- CC-13 (Mar 2023): reconciliation to actuals ceased July 2005
- CC-10 (May 2022): Aegon cannot substantiate the lapse rates
- CC-9: rates "calculated a long time ago — we could not retrieve information"
- D3.70 / CC-15 (Aug 2024): actuals available but deliberately not shared
All eight possible judicial outcomes
The model calculates a damages figure for every possible combination. The Court may uphold any single claim, any pair, or all three.
| # | Judicial outcome | Claim 1 Korea rate |
Claim 2 Cohort |
Claim 3 Decay |
Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Aegon baseline — no claims upheld | – | – | – | Aegon's own declared figures. The starting point Aegon cannot argue below. |
| 1 | Korea rate only | ✓ | – | – | ~$13.65M principal. No assumptions. Proved on Aegon's own data. ~24% of total. |
| 2 | Cohort correction only | – | ✓ | – | Cohort removed from Aegon base. Minimum floor without rate correction. |
| 3 | Growth / decay only | – | – | ✓ | Decay correction applied to Aegon's restricted estimates. Tests Claim 3 in isolation. |
| 4 | Korea rate + cohort correction | ✓ | ✓ | – | Core floor claim. Full cohort base at contractual rate. No actuarial assumptions — proved on Aegon's own data. |
| 5 | Korea rate + growth / decay | ✓ | – | ✓ | Rate correction plus decay correction on Aegon's restricted base. |
| 6 | Cohort dismissed — decay correction applied to Aegon estimates | – | – | ✓ | Key outcome: even if cohort claim dismissed, Claim 3 corrects Aegon's decay distortion on its own estimates. |
| 7 | All three claims upheld | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | $100,743,642 total. Conservative ceiling — actual bordereaux production will increase the figure. |
The admission chain — Aegon's own correspondence
Every fact establishing the three corrections is documented in Aegon's own written correspondence. The case does not depend on Harrison's evidence — it depends on Aegon's.
- Part 3 — The estimates vs actuals breachThe three suppression devices (cohort restriction, decay formula, actuals withholding) introduced in plain terms
- Part 4 — The Korea rate reductionThe correct rate, the three unauthorised step-downs, and the Double Modification Lock introduced
- Part 1 — What the breach isOverview of the three-component breach; how they worked cumulatively
- Part 2 — The admission registerCC-6 through CC-15 mapped and analysed; each admission's significance
- Part 3 — Three suppression devices in detailCohort restriction, decay formula, and actuals withholding — full technical treatment
- Part 4 — Lapse rate forensic analysisJapan ×0.99, Korea ×0.982, CBA ×0.9865 — why the rates are unsubstantiated
- Part 5 — Why the cohort defence failsTen independently sufficient grounds defeating Aegon's cohort argument
- Part 6 — CA-specific groundsAdditional grounds specific to the Consulting Agreement stream
- Part 8 — Legal consequencesBreach analysis; contractual authority for each correction
- Part 9 — Quantum impact: both streamsFinancial effect of each correction on EA and CA principal
- Part 1 — SummaryComponent A and Component B; relationship to total claim
- Part 2 — Correct rate derivationStep-by-step derivation to 1.875%; all territory formula paths
- Part 3 — Three unauthorised step-downsMOC 17 / MOC 18 analysis; each reduction period and shortfall
- Part 4 — Double Modification LockEA Clause 20 + GPR-TIMAP s.9.6 — why both must be amended simultaneously
- Part 5 — Five justifications collapseEach of Aegon's five successive justifications tested and defeated
- Part 6 — Component A quantum~$13,653,285 calculable now on declared figures
- Part 7 — Component B (reserved)Additional underpayment on actual vs declared GWP — deferred to production order
- Part 8 — Legal consequencesVoid ab initio; remedies; interaction with EA and CA streams